this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
980 points (96.6% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3199 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] canuckkat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure why you're confused because the first sentence of the article literally says:

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in the country’s constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Which sums up why they were trying to make this happen, which also sounds like they don't have an official group of Indigenous peoples advising the government on anything that is an Indigenous issue, which is super bad.

[–] Gerula@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for your reply. It's simple:

  • if they have Australian citizenship (I think in 67 was a push for this) then they already have all the Constitutional rights and obligations like every other Australian citizen. Why are these extra steps necessary?

  • if they don't: what is their current legal status? Why not just give them citizenship and thus having the right of representation in the Parliament and so forth?